State v. Lee, 21170

• Decision Date: 18 March 1980
• Docket Number: No. 21170,21170
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Rickey LEE, Appellant. (Two cases)
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 418

264 S.E.2d 418

274 S.C. 372

The STATE, Respondent, v. Rickey LEE, Appellant. (Two cases)

No. 21170.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 18, 1980.

John L. Sweeny, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes, and Sol. James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice:

The defendant-appellant, Rickey Lee, was indicted and pled not guilty to charges of (1) murder and (2) failing to stop for a police vehicle. After much testimony had been taken, he changed his plea to guilty of voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced by the trial judge to twenty years imprisonment, suspended after the service of fifteen years and placed on probation for five years. He also pled guilty to failing to stop and was sentenced to ninety days, to run concurrently. After the sentence was imposed, he attempted to withdraw his guilty plea. His request was denied. He now appeals, raising basically two issues for determination by this court: (1) Did the lower court (Judge Julius H. Baggett) err in holding that he was competent to stand trial? and (2) Did the trial judge (Paul M. Moore) err in refusing to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea?

Prior to the call of the case for trial, the defendant's lawyer submitted to the court that he was not competent to stand trial. Having raised the issue, the burden of proving that he was not competent to stand trial was upon him, and the burden of proof in such cases is by the preponderance of the evidence. There was testimony which, if believed, would have warranted a finding that this defendant was not competent to stand trial. On the other hand, the South Carolina State Hospital Superintendent submitted to the court a report dated June 14, 1978, indicating that the defendant had been admitted to the hospital on June 1, 1978, for the purpose of determining his capacity to stand trial, pursuant to § 44-23-410, et seq., Code of Laws of South Carolina (1976). This report stated that after study and observation, the hospital staff found:

"(a) That the above-named defendant (Rickey Lee) is not mentally ill.

"(b) That the above-named defendant is capable of understanding the nature of the charges, and is capable of assisting counsel in his own defense."

These reports were admissible under Code § 44-23-410(2).

Defendant argues that it was improper during the competency hearing to allow the solicitor to ask the defendant's expert witness whether the defendant understood right from wrong. Over objection, the question was permitted. The issue of "right from wrong", as enunciated in the M'Naghten Rule, was not the issue before the court. It is apparent that the judge correctly understood that the issue was whether the defendant was capable at the time of understanding the proceedings against him and assisting in his own defense. Normally, the M'Naghten Rule is applicable as of the time of the alleged offense, while the competency-to-stand-trial issue relates to the time when the case would be submitted to the court and jury. The evidence was relevant on the issue of whether the defendant had an understanding of the proceedings against him and was correctly admitted.

The evidence submitted made an issue for determination by the judge. We cannot say that his finding that the defendant was capable of standing trial was without evidentiary support or against the preponderance of the evidence and, accordingly, we find no error on the part of the judge in ordering the...